The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 4

[I SEE SPIDEY]

That's only one line from that post, funnily enough.

Don't like him so don't care about the rest.

 

[Rock Sexton]

And in your responses you're telling her to stop comparing certain films to each other as if she doesn't have the right to. She's free to do that, just as everyone else is.

Then back it up with facts. Otherwise it's an empty, pointless comparison ... not to mention a bitter one.

 

[Karelia]

Are we going to get a Director's Cut of the film possibly?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^I'd watch it if one were to ever surface just to see if it would feature less plotholes and jarring transitions.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Are we going to get a Director's Cut of the film possibly?

The theatrical version was the director's cut.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

The theatrical version was the director's cut.

I saw this posted on another site. I can't verify its accuracy, but it's interesting nontheless...

 

[Majik1387]

Yeah, the theatrical cut is not the director's cut. I'm not saying the director's cut would be much different, but odds are studios will cut things for any reason they feel necessary for the theatrical release.

 

[Karelia]

I saw this posted on another site. I can't verify its accuracy, but it's interesting nontheless...

That's why I was asking about it. Made me curious.

 

[Octoberist]

sounds fishy

 

[Poni_Boy]

Yeah, the theatrical cut is not the director's cut. I'm not saying the director's cut would be much different, but odds are studios will cut things for any reason they feel necessary for the theatrical release.

Yes, it is. The main scenes not included in the theatrical release were scrapped almost immediately after principle photography ended. There wasn't enough money to add effects. It was Campbell's decision to cut those particular scenes.

 

[Poni_Boy]

That's why I was asking about it. Made me curious.

Honestly, that sounds like a wishful fanboy. Anyone could have written that up without any actual information, just delusions of grandeur

See.. I can tie Star Wars into Green Lantern

 

[Karelia]

Honestly, that sounds like a wishful fanboy. Anyone could have written that up without any actual information, just delusions of grandeur

See.. I can tie Star Wars into Green Lantern

Well done, well done. Han Solo rox. t:

 

[Poni_Boy]

Well done, well done. Han Solo rox. t:

Thank you, thank you (they should have hired me on the marketing side)

Seriously though, what we saw in theaters is it unless A) they spend more money adding effects to effects-less scenes or B) they release those scenes sans effects. I don't see either happening

 

[Majik1387]

Yes, it is. The main scenes not included in the theatrical release were scrapped almost immediately after principle photography ended. There wasn't enough money to add effects. It was Campbell's decision to cut those particular scenes.

That's not what I'm talking about. Studio cuts tend to be after principal photography, during post production. Those are the kind of cuts I'm referring to.

 

[Poni_Boy]

That's not what I'm talking about. Studio cuts tend to be after principal photography, during post production. Those are the kind of cuts I'm referring to.

I get what you're saying, I'm saying the same thing. After all effects are added during post production and not during principle photography.

And it was Campbell's call which major scenes were not given the effects treatment, not the studio.

 

[solidsnake86]

I didn't know I wasn't allowed to think that Thor was medicore? Thankyou for informing me of that.

Obviously you didn't read my post because you seem to think that I loved GL when I merely said that it was just as medicore as Thor, which it was IMHO.

And if the audience loves Thor so much how come (I believe they liked it but the love it overstated) despite it opening so much lower than Iron Man it's legs haven't been as good? It's not going to get a 3.0 multiplier and it's not getting to 200mil.

I f**king bag on Thor because I think that it was mediocre as hell and is only passable because of the actors performances. It's a cheap ass looking movie thats not big in scope at all and the action scenes are BB/TDK level bad. Plus it's too damn short and the earth scenes go by too fast to make and impression and are handled poorly. That 10 extras only back-lot town was awful.

Yes, Thor is getting a better reception than GL and it's going to make more money. That is true but it's also true that I think that both Thor and GL suffer from the same problems and GL is the only one being called out for them.

You are free to love Thor or GL or hate Thor or GL or whatever but don't tell me that I'm not entitled to my opinion of the film.

You are allowed to compare the two films because they were both mediocre. I find it funny everyone pulls out the opinion card when bagging on GL but God forbid you point out the same problems with Thor.

Anways I think everyone agrees GL was a disappointment, I don't think anyone is saying its a smash hit success or didn't get blasted with bad reviews so why are the people on this board who hated the film acting like martyrs because some people are saying it wasnt as bad as everyone made it out to be.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I didn't know I wasn't allowed to think that Thor was medicore? Thankyou for informing me of that.

Obviously you didn't read my post because you seem to think that I loved GL when I merely said that it was just as medicore as Thor, which it was IMHO.

And if the audience loves Thor so much how come (I believe they liked it but the love it overstated) despite it opening so much lower than Iron Man it's legs haven't been as good? It's not going to get a 3.0 multiplier and it's not getting to 200mil.

I f**king bag on Thor because I think that it was mediocre as hell and is only passable because of the actors performances. It's a cheap ass looking movie thats not big in scope at all and the action scenes are BB/TDK level bad. Plus it's too damn short and the earth scenes go by too fast to make and impression and are handled poorly. That 10 extras only back-lot town was awful.

Yes, Thor is getting a better reception than GL and it's going to make more money. That is true but it's also true that I think that both Thor and GL suffer from the same problems and GL is the only one being called out for them.

You are free to love Thor or GL or hate Thor or GL or whatever but don't tell me that I'm not entitled to my opinion of the film.

I agree with you, and I liked both films. I think they are both very flawed, but fun movies that got some things right and other things wrong (well, with Thor, I'm guessing about some stuff because I don't know the character that well). I don't believe in critic conspiracies or any of that crap... but I do wonder why the flaws in Thor seemed to fly under the radar when they're ALL anyone wants to talk about in Green Lantern.

 

[ElMariachi]

It's not that hard of a problem to spot

I think so. What is so bad about the fight/action scenes in BB/TDK? I thought they were great. Not sure what you were expecting----Enter the Dragon?

 

[ElMariachi]

Most people have a problem with the action scenes in the Batman movies.

He's on my ignore list so I only know what he said because of you Jax.

wow, really? That's pretty weak. Just put anybody who disagrees with you on the ignore list? You know that's what dictators who are also delusional do? Well, maybe not the ignore list......probally a prison like the one Ivan Vanko was locked up in.

 

[Rock Sexton]

You are allowed to compare the two films because they were both mediocre. I find it funny everyone pulls out the opinion card when bagging on GL but God forbid you point out the same problems with Thor.

Because a large amount of people completely disagree with you. That puts your opinion in the extreme minority.

 

[moviedoors]

I truely believe that the critics were just looking for a comicbook movie to bash.

Yeah, that totally explains the negative geek critic reaction, regular old geeks, and regular old movie goers.

 

[KalMart]

Have there been any 'director's cuts' of WB movies recently? I can't recall any off the top of my head. 'Donner Superman II' doesn't count.

 

[solidsnake86]

Because a large amount of people completely disagree with you. That puts your opinion in the extreme minority.

What's your point though, people are entitled to say both films were similar and one got let off easy while another got it handed to them.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Have there been any 'director's cuts' of WB movies recently? I can't recall any off the top of my head. 'Donner Superman II' doesn't count.

Watchmen.

 

[ElMariachi]

I agree with you, and I liked both films. I think they are both very flawed, but fun movies that got some things right and other things wrong (well, with Thor, I'm guessing about some stuff because I don't know the character that well). I don't believe in critic conspiracies or any of that crap... but I do wonder why the flaws in Thor seemed to fly under the radar when they're ALL anyone wants to talk about in Green Lantern.

What flaws were there in Thor aside from petty, minor fanboy grievances? Thor not wearing his helmet is not a flaw, I am afraid to say.

People continue to say that Thor was flawed without providing any actual flaws. The reason GL was bashed by critics was because it the writing was a mess, the pacing of the movie was bad, the CGI was distracting, and there wasn't much about it that made the movie special/unique.